Multiple reports suggest that since 2010, approximately 800 sedition cases have been filed in India against more than 13,000 people.
MICHAEL ANAND OFM
“Raffle, Demonetization, PMLA, Central Vista, all judicial verdicts are in favour of government by Supreme Court. These judges were appointed through collegium system. What more does Rijiju want?” tweeted Mr. KapilSibal, one of the senior most advocates of the Supreme Court and a senior parliamentarian, in his recent comment on the Union Government’s demand on the Supreme Court collegium. This statement says it all about the current political scenario of our country and its impact on the Indian democracy. It seems to be a mere sham to teach the children that our Indian democracy consists of three pillars (Legislative, Judiciary and Executive) as envisaged by the Indian Constitution. It is disheartening to note that our country is almost leaning towards the popular ideologyof the ruling party “One Nation, One Ruler”, and that “OneRuler” will be none but the one and only the majoritarianism. The monarchical and majoritarian mentalities of the present legislators of the ruling party out rightly push forward to make the pillars of democracy toothless and redundant.
The Fourth Pillar
The freedom of press, the so called ‘fourth pillar of democracy’, is also questionable as most of the leading Indian Television channels and the print media is controlled by the same majoritatiran rulers. Just a few days ago Justice K. M. Joseph, the judge of Supreme Court questioned the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) about their unbiased action against the television anchors who express biased views on the air. He said anchors sometimes shut down people from expressing their views. In many of these TV programmes, you don’t allow people to talk on an equal basis. You don’t want the participants to express their views, you will either mute them, or allow the other person to go on the whole time unchallenged, he said adding “so the point is it is not the right of the broadcaster or the views of the panelist. It is the right of the persons who are viewing it” (as reported in the Indian Express, January 14, 2023).
Freedom of Speech
The freedom of speech is also under the attack in the name of sedition charges. The recent order of the Supreme Court of India on 11 May, 2022, in S.G. Vombatkerevs Union of India has been monumental for the future of dissent in the country. The order has been passed in a bunch of petitions filed challenging the Constitutionality of the provision of Section 124A on sedition under the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). During the hearings in the matter, the Union of India, in its affidavit, averred that it had decided to reexamine and reconsider the provisions on sedition under the IPC. It was further submitted by the Union of India that the Supreme Court may examine the constitutional validity of the law on sedition once the exercise of reconsideration has been undertaken by the government. Accordingly, the Court deemed it inappropriate to use the provisions on sedition till the reexamination by the Union of India is complete. Additionally, the Court recommended that the governments should restrain from registering any FIR, or undertaking any coercive measure in sedition cases till the matter is under consideration. The Court also ordered that all pending proceedings concerning sedition would be kept in abeyance. Multiple reports suggest that since 2010, approximately 800 sedition cases have been filed in India against more than 13,000 people. The National Crime Records Bureau’s Report “Crime in India 2020” states that there have been 70, 93, and 73 cases of sedition in 2018, 2019, and 2020 respectively.
Union Government Vs the Independency of Judiciary
The Supreme Court and the Union government are at odds over how judges should be appointed in the higher judiciary. In the recent weeks, the government has reiterated the need for a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), prompting the apex court to defend the present Collegium system. Union Minister for Law and Justice KirenRijiju reignited the debate in the beginning of November when he commented that the Collegium system of appointment was “opaque” and needed to be reconsidered. He also made a statement saying that the judges are wasting most of their time in petty cases and in appointing judges. Later, two days after Rijiju’s statement in Parliament pointing to the high pendency of cases, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said, “It is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge.”
As of now the collegium system has been traditionally followed in India for the appointment of the judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, though this system is not based on Constitution. Under this system, the Chief Justice of India along with four senior-most Supreme Court judges recommend appointments and transfers of judges.A High Court collegium, meanwhile, is led by the incumbent Chief Justice and the two senior most judges of that court.In this system, the government’s role is limited to getting an inquiry conducted by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) if a lawyer is to be elevated as a judge in a High Court or the Supreme Court. The government can also raise objections and seek clarifications regarding the Collegium’s choices, but, if the Collegium reiterates the same names, the government is bound, under Constitution Bench judgments, to appoint them to the post. But if the Union government pushes through its agenda of taking total control inthe appointment of judges, the independency of Indian judiciary will be at stake. As Mr. ShashiTharoor expressed on this issue, “We should do everything possible to preserve the independence of the judiciary from the executive. Subordinating the judiciary to executive control would be to compromise its independence at the very moment of appointment.”
Governors Vs the State Governments
The recent incident of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Mr. R.N. Ravi, walking out of the Assembly hall, while the Chief Minister of the State was delivering his talk, his unprecedented involvement in the administration of the State, his unnecessary remarks on the Dravidian Model of rule and the state legislators raising slogans against him, was keenly observed by the entire nation. This is one example of many of the Governors of the States, particularly in the non-BJP ruled States like Kerala, West Bengal, etc., trying to push forward the agenda of the Union government or the ideology of the majoritarian political party indirectly in the local governance.
Union Vs the State Governments
Though, India is not a true federal government because it combines features of a federal government and the features of unitary government which can also be called as a quasi-federal government.A federal government is a system of government that separates the power between union government and state government of the country. It delegates certain responsibilities to each sector so that the central government has its own task to do and state government has its own.Article 1 of Indian constitution describes India as a ‘’Union of States.’’ This means India is a union comprising of various states which are an integral part of it. The 7th schedule of the Constitution of India provides a clear list of Union, State and the Concurrent power of various system of country to enact laws. If the Union government tries to interfere in every aspect of the State governments, the federal nature our Indian Constitution will be at stake.
We can go on enumerating various issues, such as, the introduction of controversial Anti-Conversion laws, through which the agenda of “One Nation, One Religion” is propagated, the aim to reform the electoral laws, through which the agenda of “One Nation, One Election” is aimed at, the imposition of the two language formula (Hindi and English), through which the agenda of “One Nation, One Language” notion is pushed forward and so on. The beauty of our nation lies in the multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, secular, socialist and democratic realities. The people of our country should never give way to one particular ideology to dominate the entire nation that would pave way for the natural death of democracy. It is time for every citizen of India to ask if the three pillars—legislature, executive and judiciary—under the Constitution have held their own, worked as B.R. Ambedkar and the other wise people of the Constituent Assembly would have wanted them to. Their intention was clear that they wanted the three pillars of Indian Democracy to work cohesively, and at the same time they also wanted each of three wings to function independently, with a clearly defined separation of powers.
∎
